Position Papers, Resolutions and Testimony Relevant to "Track 1"
and U.S. "Requests" and "Offer" on Legal Services
Position Papers and Resolutions by ABA and It Entities
- ABA February 2002 Resolution Regarding U.S. Negotiating Position on the "Requests"
The February 2002 ABA Resolution represents the current ABA policy with respect to the desired U.S. negotiating position concerning "outbound" U.S. lawyers. In this resolution, the ABA requested that the U.S. Trade Representative seek practice rights for "outbound" U.S. lawyers equivalent to the practice rights set forth in the ABA Model Rule Respecting [Foreign] Legal Consultants.
- Recommendations Eight and Nine of the ABA Commission on Multijurisdictional Practice
These recommendations represent the current ABA policy with respect to non-U.S. lawyers "inbound" to the U.S. These recommendations endorse adoption of the ABA Model Rules Respecting Legal Consultants and the ABA Model Rule on Temporary Practice by Foreign Lawyers.
- ABA CPR Policy Implementation Committee
The mission of the CPR Policy Implementation Committee includes efforts to assist states in implementing MJP Recommendations Eight and Nine, which are the ABA Model Foreign Legal Consultant Rule and the ABA Model Rule for Temporary Practice by Foreign Lawyers. The Committee webpage includes charts summarizing the implementation status of these rules.
- The ABA Section of International Law and Practice's September 2001 Resolution (approved in October 2001 by the SILP Council)
The Section of International Law originally asked the ABA to endorse this resolution at its February 2002 meeting. Because the issues in this resolution overlapped with the work of the MJP Commission, the Section agreed to withdraw its request and support the substitute resolution reprinted above as the ABA February 2002 Resolution regarding outbound U.S. lawyers.
Position Papers and Resolutions by Other Bar Associations and Entities
- February 2002 Resolution of the Association of the Bar of the City of New York and the New York State Bar
Reports indicate that the U.S. "requests" to other countries concerning legal services by "outbound" U.S. lawyers rely heavily on this recommendation.
Federal Register Notices Requesting Comments
Testimony Submitted to U.S. Trade Representative Concerning Legal Services and Current GATS Negotiations
- Testimony of Prof. Laurel S. Terry
This testimony identifies six issues relevant to legal services and the GATS negotiations, indicates the need for greater consultation among the U.S. legal profession and the USTR and suggests three substantive issues on which the USTR should seek additional input from U.S. lawyers.
- Testimony of Prof. Carole Silver Concerning Errors in Existing U.S. Schedule of Specific Commitments
This testimony compares the "U.S. Schedule of Specific Commitments" prepared in 1994 and submitted to the WTO with the current U.S. state rules regarding foreign legal consultants. It notes areas in which the U.S. Schedule is not accurate.
- Testimony of National Organization of Bar Counsel This testimony askes the USTR to consider the issue of reciprocal discipline when liberalizing the ability of foreign lawyers to practice in the U.S.
- Testimony of the Coalition of Service Industries
This testimony presents the position of CSI, whose members include "outbound" U.S. law firms interested in removing restrictions placed on U.S. Lawyers. Although CSI has only a few law firm members, it indicates that its presentation is based on surveys of approximately 100 U.S. law firms.
- Testimony of Association of Professional Responsibility Lawyers
This testimony presents the views of APRL, an independent [U.S.] national organiztion of lawyers concentrating in the fields of professional responsibility and legal ethics, inlcuding law professors, bar association counsel, counsel for respondents in disciplinary hearings, ethics expert witnesses, legal malpractice litigators, counsel to disciplinary committees and in-house law firm ethics counsel. APRL's testimomy addressed the issues of temporary and permanent services by "inbound" foreign lawyers to the U.S. and commented on the testimony of NOBC. This testimony discusses the ABA Model Rules on Temporary Practice for Foreign Lawyers and offers alternative language for consideration.